Re: Performance Monitoring

Article View: mod.comp-soc

Article #165

#165

From: Dave Taylor
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1986 18:52

12 lines
1152 bytes

This article is from Murray.pa@Xerox.COM
 and was received on Sat Sep 27 16:00:39 1986
 
I think the main reason for the performance monitoring debate is that
the workers and management involved are in an adversary role. I'm
reasonable sure that's the case for directory assistance. They have been
monitoring performance long before computers and grumbling about that
for just as long.

[comments anyone?  I think this is a bit of an overgeneralization.  There
 are a lot of subtle issues involved in places where there isn't an 
 adverserial role at all... -- Dave]

Technical Details

Message-ID: <690@hplabsc.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!vrdxhq!epiwrl!epimass!oliveb!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!vrdxhq!epiwrl!epimass!oliveb!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: Re: Performance Monitoring
Message-ID: <690@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Sep-86 14:52:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.690
Posted: Sun Sep 28 14:52:08 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 01:06:54 EDT
Reply-To: hplabs!Murray.pa@Xerox.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 12
Approved: taylor@hplabs
Reference: <681@hplabsc.UUCP>